Ace-Garageguy

Yes, rectangular tubing would be considerably preferable to using an old, light, un-boxed frame. Though both the frames in the Revell '28 kits kinda represent boxed units due to molding limitations, the skinnier model A frame is just too light IMHO, and modifying the other one, the '32 frame, will take a lot of work to make it fit well. And...modifying that original X-member is FAR less work than building a frame up from scratch, and it has the added benefit of being the right shape to start with.

Those are for real cars...

"My main question is…is there any preference for using the stock frame vs swapping it for one from the Revell ‘29 model A?" In reality what you propose would never even be considered. The wheelbase of the earlier frame is much shorter (106" for a '32...the wheelbase on the Revell '29 chassis too...vs. 112" for the '35-'40-'41) and it's designed for a much lighter vehicle. '35-'40 Ford car and '35-'41 pickup chassis are all pretty much identical, so not too terribly hard to find. I'd recommend you build it like you'd do a real one...modify the '37 frame as required to accept the later go-parts.

Great color for it. Nice hood/radiator shell fit too. For whatever reason, people rarely get that right.

Bingo. Sounds like a recipe for fisheyes.

Always love a Topolino. Standout job on the dual-mag wiring, the scale-appearing blower drive belt, and the front suspension springs too.

I've been thinking along the same lines, as I bought a partially assembled one some time back that ended up being much more of a glooey mess than it appeared in photos. I believe that would be a great way to proceed. The working features could be retained.

Looks great. One thing that stands out to me is the realistic appearance of the panel lines. Did you do anything special to achieve that look?

Yup. That's a problem...but I have one B&W photo of an S6B just after a flight with soot from the exhaust all down the side and paint peeling and blistered from the heat. Not color, but I'll probably just shoot it something like this (supposedly) actual color pic from 1927 of the S5...but with soot and blistering. Close enough for me. EDIT: Though some sources I've read claim it was a robin's egg or baby blue, more like the Spitfire prototype. Who knows?

Mmmmmm...heaven.

They're still popular, and there's a fair sized community of enthusiasts. Lotsa parts and accessories still available, and even some stuff newly manufactured. I first saw one advertised in a 1959 (I think) Model Railroader, had no earthly idea what it was or what you did with it. Over the next few years I read articles in the mag about guys scratch-building spectacular jewel-like locomotives and began to get a yen for one. Quit model trains, then hobby modeling altogether at around 18. Fast forward to about 2015, after I'd learned to use real machine tools and got back into modeling...one day I just decided it was time.

Irreplaceable, custom-made just for you. Take good care of 'em. There's not another set just like that anywhere in the universe.

This guy is one of the best teachers of basic science I've ever seen.

Another big batch of primary-source reference material from the early 1930s, for the Supermarine S6B. Items below are just a very small sample.

It'd be nice if an Oz-based model company would start up. Those upside-down guys have a lot of really interesting cars.

Just be aware the QC in those kits is a fairly rare bird in a hot-rod on the street, and the two-piece construction, molded in halves as shown, makes it harder to paint the axle housings, which are generally steel parts on a period-car. Instruction page from those kits shown below. Photo immediately below shows a typical QC like you'd most likely find under a period, or light, hot rod. Steel axle housings / bells, that get painted. Big photo below shows a contemporary racing QC similar to what's shown in the kit instructions above. Cast-alloy axle bells, steel shaft housings.

Not hard to do, yourself, and if done correctly it's legal in all 50 states. https://store.nolo.com/products/quick-and-legal-will-book-quic.html You also really need to make a "when I die" file... https://time.com/5640494/why-you-need-to-make-a-when-i-die-file-before-its-too-late/

Everything looks right. Very nice, and kudos for putting forth the effort to make a model correctly represent functional reality.

Most likely considerably faster. Though a great deal of research was done in wind tunnels and water tanks to reduce float drag in the air and while taxiing up through 1931, when the Schneider trophy was permanently won by England that year, much of that research stopped. "Land planes" shortly afterwards went on to set higher speed records, in large part because they didn't have huge draggy floats to slow them down. Again, drag is the most important single factor in going really fast. Drag increases proportional to the square of speed, so when you go twice as fast, for example, you have to overcome 4 times as much drag. Three times as fast, nine times the drag, etc. But the power to overcome that drag varies with the cube of speed...which essentially means that to go a little faster, you need a LOT more power. (NOTE: The relationships above are perhaps overly simplified, but in general concept, they're close enough for our purposes here.) Looked at another way, this is a large part of the reason Danny Thompson's twin-engined LSR car was significantly faster than his father Mickey's four-engined car...Danny's car had vastly reduced drag because of a much smaller package. (NOTE: Mickey Thompson realized this, as he initially built the skinny two-engined car Danny would drive to a record in 2018...in 1968.) And this is one big reason you don't currently see prop-planes going faster than the speed of sound. The propeller disc, besides providing thrust, also creates massive drag...not to mention the other insanely complex aerodynamics going on with a prop at those speeds. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0031b.shtml

I'm confused by the meaning here. The "left field" examples I posted are ALL examples of a mounting flange cast integrally with a crankcase (note: other than the single shot of the completed model necessary to refute an assertion the model represented a side-valve configuration). This was a perfectly valid way to illustrate visually different but functionally identical versions of what the OP realized he wanted to achieve to make the model appear rational. Nothing more, nothing less. Where's the "left field" come in?

Dancing pretty close to the edge there, aren't you boss?

Couple real world problems though. Hummer's claimed range is 350 miles, but the 800V recharging stations that can almost fill the thing in 30 minutes just aren't on every corner. Other thing is how much of that total vehicle weight is batteries? Lead zeppelins don't fly all that well.

You guys are killing me. Every time I think I have everything I could possibly want, something that I'd never seen before shows up here, or somebody reminds me of one I'd forgotten was on the hunt list. Saw a guy here doing a Mad Max ('73 Australian Falcon) Interceptor, reminded I'd been after one long ago, found a Blue Fin (Chinese market Aoshima) version for not horrible money. Relatively simple kit, but what's there is a little better than I'd expected.